83Thus, in the first place, the contested decision is inadequately reasoned in that, contrary to what the Court's case-law requires (Joined Cases T-68/89, T-77/89 and T-78/89 SIV and Others v Commission [1992] ECR II-1403‘Flat Glass’, paragraph 159), it is not founded on an adequate definition of the market relevant to the case, but only on a finding that a ‘Belgian beer market’ existed. The Commission erred in failing to carry out an analysis of the precise geographic extent of the market or markets in question and of the potential substitutability of the various beer products. The use by the Commission in its defence of the expression ‘Belgian brewing industry’ in place of that of ‘Belgian beer market’ does not address the applicant's complaint that in the present case the definition of the market was one and the same as the definition of the infringement. The geographic markets referred to, namely the Belgian and French markets, are defined in an insufficiently documented manner in the contested decision.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.